Pluralism and heterodoxy in economic methodology

Economists work within models that are simplified depictions of reality. An argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics is that different approaches lend insight by looking at different phenomena from different viewpoints. While all economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, Austrian school economists must be more pluralistic in their understanding and presentation of ideas than mainstream economists if they want their ideas to have an impact on mainstream economics. Despite the argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics, in research, as in other activities, specialization increases productivity. While Austrian school economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, they are likely to be most productive in their research by specializing in the development of Austrian school methods and ideas.     

Perspectives for Post-Keynesian Economics

The paper reviews and assesses the negative and positive advice which has been offered by various fellow economists to heterodox economists in general, and Post-Keynesian economists in particular, in light of changes that have occurred within neoclassical economics and in light of the rising hegemony of mainstream economics in economics departments. Various strategies are considered, among which is more engagement with orthodox dissenters, but it is concluded that the majority of heterodox economists ought instead to engage more with other heterodox economists and possibly other social sciences, developing and expanding their own agenda around real-world problems.     

Scientific misconduct and research ethics in economics: an introduction

Abstract

Since the screening of Inside Job in movie theatres around the world in 2010, research integrity in economics has been questioned by scholars and public intellectuals. Prestigious economists and policy makers are accused of conflicts of interest while prominent economists are charged with plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Some of these economists replied to accusations about themselves while many others have preferred not to respond at all. These days, economists hear the following question more often than before: “what is wrong with economics?”     

新制度经济学的边界——三种代表性观点及其比较

在新制度经济学的边界问题上,新制度经济学家(威廉姆森和芮切特)、旧制度经济学家(霍奇森)以及经济思想史家(卢瑟福)不仅边界刻画依据不完全相同,而且他们对新制度经济学智力成果的描述也存在着很大的差异。新制度经济学家认为,某种制度分析是否属于新制度经济学关键是看该理论是否假定环境存在着不确定性、人是否具有有限理性,是否明确地或隐含地以交易费用为正为前提。而新制度经济学的边界在旧制度经济学家和经济思想史家那里被进一步放宽。他们深入到本体论层面,认为某种制度分析只要坚持方法论个人主义,那么它就属于新制度经济学的内容。而新制度经济学家的边界刻画更能准确、客观地反映新制度经济学的智力成果。     

The Influence of Economists On the Federal Reserve Act

Many economists helped to lay the groundwork for the Federal Reserve. Some did important work analyzing the problems of the National Bank System and arguing for formation of a central bank in economics journals. At least as importantly, if not more so, some economists took an active role in the reform movement and provided help and advice with the actual Congressional bill. Among these are J. Lawrence Laughlin, who chaired a group that actively raised support for the Federal Reserve Act in Congressional districts, and H. Parker Willis, who served as an expert for the subcommittee which wrote the original draft of what became the Federal Reserve Act. More broadly, this episode illustrates the impact that intellectuals and ideas can have on actual events; the analysis contemporary economists did in academic journals and in more political activities before and after the panic of 1907 guided the actual formation of a working central bank (JEL B10, N21).     

Qui docet discit

Academic economists play many roles; researchers, policy advisor, teacher, etc. While each of these roles is important for the career advancement of an economist, the most important role of academic economists is teaching future citizen economists. It is incumbent upon economists qua teacher to prepare them to make sense of the world they will inhabit. We must, therefore, not teach economics, at least at the introductory level, as if it is the first course on the way to a Ph.D., but as if it is the last class the students will ever take in economics. A consistently subjectivist economics is the best way to teach future citizen economists. When students understand economics as something that helps them make sense of the world, rather than a course in applied mathematics, they will be better citizen economists less likely to fall prey to those selling them free lunches.     

Imagining Economics Otherwise: Encounters with Identity/Difference

How can theoretical criticisms to economics introduced by feminist economists be addressed empirically? Feminist scholars outside economics have spent considerable time debating appropriate methods and have often argued that interactive, situated research is more appropriate for answering feminist concerns. By telling the stories of three Palestinian women, I provide examples where qualitative research can enhance and even challenge quantitative research. I argue that our understanding of concepts such as power, individualism and preference formation will be enhanced by the use of qualitative methods and that feminist economists should be among those questioning the narrow definition of acceptable evidence articulated by mainstream economists.     

Contributions of German and American jesuits to economics: The last 100 years

This article focuses on the contributions of six economists schooled in the Jesuit tradition. Four are Jesuit priests: Heinrich Pesch and Oswald von Nell-Breuning who are German, and Bernard Dempsey and Joseph Becker who are American. Two others, Goetz Briefs and William Waters, are lay persons who are referred to as “Jesuits without collars.” Five have direct ties to one another. Von Nell Breuning was a student of Pesch, as was Briefs. Waters was a student of Briefs, and Dempsey was influenced by Pesch and von Nell-Breuning. All five are solidarist economists who think about economics and economic affairs in a distinct way which originates with Pesch. Today they would be called personalist economists. The distinctive work of these six Jesuits is barely visible in the ranks of academic economists. Their contributions should be highlighted before they are lost forever to those who sense there is something inadequate about mainstream economics.     

Contributions of German and American jesuits to economics: The last 100 years

This article focuses on the contributions of six economists schooled in the Jesuit tradition. Four are Jesuit priests: Heinrich Pesch and Oswald von Nell-Breuning who are German, and Bernard Dempsey and Joseph Becker who are American. Two others, Goetz Briefs and William Waters, are lay persons who are referred to as “Jesuits without collars.” Five have direct ties to one another. Von Nell Breuning was a student of Pesch, as was Briefs. Waters was a student of Briefs, and Dempsey was influenced by Pesch and von Nell-Breuning. All five are solidarist economists who think about economics and economic affairs in a distinct way which originates with Pesch. Today they would be called personalist economists. The distinctive work of these six Jesuits is barely visible in the ranks of academic economists. Their contributions should be highlighted before they are lost forever to those who sense there is something inadequate about mainstream economics.     

The economist’s oath: a review Essay

George DeMartino’s 2011 monograph, The Economist’s Oath: On the Need for and Content of Professional Economic Ethics, provides an excellent basis for the development of a discourse on the ethics of economists. This review focuses on the way in which mainstream economists’ arguments against consideration of ethics follow from their presentation of economics as a purely technical subject, and the implication that this pretense itself is unethical. The complexity of ethical issues within a pluralist approach to economics is explored, ranging from the institutional environment within which economists practice to epistemological questions.     

The Wrong Type of Pluralism: Toward a Transdisciplinary Social Science

When heterodox economists talk of pluralism they are generally talking about pluralism within the economics profession—they are asking: how can we have a more pluralistic economics profession? This paper argues that another, perhaps more useful, way to think of pluralism and economics is from the perspective of all the social sciences. When considered in reference to the social science profession rather than in reference to the economics profession, the amount of pluralism increases significantly, since different social sciences follow quite different methodologies. But looking at pluralism from the social science perspective reveals a different type of pluralism problem in social science. While there may be plenty of pluralism within social science as a whole, there is a serious question about whether it is appropriately distributed. This paper argues that heterodox economists' agenda should be a greater blending of all the social science departments. It summarizes proposals to do so on both the undergraduate level and graduate level, and explains why supporting variations of these proposals would be a strategy that would further the objectives of most heterodox economists more than would their current strategy of pushing for more pluralism in economics.     

Heterodox Economics and its Critics

Heterodox economics has its critics. Most of the criticisms are friendly comments and analysis directed towards improving heterodox economic theory. However, the critics and their criticisms that are the concern of this article are the ones that challenge the existence of heterodox economic theory and the community of heterodox economists as manifested through their graduate programs, conferences, journals and identity. These critics observe that the academic status quo in economics, as manifested in its department and journal rankings, rules of academic engagement, and its institutions and organizations, favor mainstream economics and that it is unlikely to change in the future. Consequently, they argue that heterodox economists can survive only if they become more like mainstream economists. With focus on assimilation, the critics direct their criticisms towards the social characteristics of the heterodox community and to the personal characteristics of heterodox economists. This article is a response to the critics.     

"Never Intended to be a Theory Of Everything": Domestic Labor in Neoclassical and Marxian Economics

This article is a comparative study of the treatment of domestic labor by neoclassical and Marxian economists. Before 1960, mainstream economics concentrated on production for the market, with serious analysis of housework confined to a handful of economists, whose efforts in this regard were marginalized by economics departments but supported by departments of home economics. Later mainstream analyses, first in agricultural economics and then in human capital theory, culminated in Gary Becker's "new household economics." Domestic labor was also neglected by Marxist thinkers, who argued that housework was being socialized under capitalism and would disappear altogether under socialism, but it was rediscovered by Marxist-feminists in the late 1960s. Housework continues, however, to pose serious analytical difficulties for both neoclassical and Marxian economists.     

经济学家、经济学与中国改革

本文回顾了中国经济学家伴随中国改革成长的历程 ,历数诸多为中国建立现代市场经济制度 ,进行过艰苦的理论和思想探索的经济学家 ;并通过具体实例说明经济学家通过对于现代经济科学认识的深化 ,在改革的重大关头和事件上所发挥的重要作用。中国改革的深入 ,对于经济科学的要求愈来愈高 ,经济学的新课题层出不穷。因此 ,本文提出亟需加快我国经济科学学科建设的若干建议。     

Teaching Heterodox Economics: Introduction to the Special Issue

This introduction to the special issue of the Forum for Social Economics on teaching heterodox economics provides an overview of the papers in this volume. The papers demonstrate that heterodox economists are particularly gifted at explaining the dynamics of the real world economy; therefore, heterodox economics instruction often specializes in, and benefits from, immersing students into real world situations. Heterodox economists push pedagogic boundaries by directly confronting students with real-world data and situations. In the process, students achieve a rich understanding of the world as it is and not as a hypothetical myth. The overview of papers is followed by suggestions for future work on teaching heterodox economics, and acknowledgments of those who made this special issue possible.     

THE CITATION IMPACT OF FEMINIST ECONOMICS

Abstract

Feminist economics is a transformative project. However, transformation generates resistance. Feminist economics can be deliberately excluded, co-opted through an uncritical application of rational choice theory, or ignored. And feminist economics can be listened to: when the United Nations consults feminist economists; when feminist economists publish in widely read journals; when a student finds inspiration in a Feminist Economics article. All of these are ways feminist economics can, and has, influenced the profession. After ten years of discourse, it is possible to take stock and assess the impact of feminist economics. This article provides a partial assessment through a consideration of citations of the journal Feminist Economics, describing its impact on mainstream economics, heterodox economics, and other disciplines. While the overall project of feminist economics encompasses much more than just one journal, studying the citations for Feminist Economics is a first step toward assessing the influence of the entire corpus.     

The changing face of mainstream economics

This article argues that economics is currently undergoing a fundamental shift in its method, away from neoclassical economics and into something new. Although that something new has not been fully developed, it is beginning to take form and is centered on dynamics, recursive methods and complexity theory. The foundation of this change is coming from economists who are doing cutting edge work and influencing mainstream economics. These economists are defining and laying the theoretical groundwork for the fundamental shift that is occurring in the economics profession.     

What are the ethics of welfare economics? And,are welfare economists utilitarians?

Four questions: (1) What is welfare economics? (2) Is it an ethical system?  (3) How do welfare economists differ from one another? And (4), how do they differ from other economic ethicists? Then utilitarianism is discussed. I was taught, and have inferred to others, that welfare economists are utilitarians. They are not. Welfare economics is an atypical form of welfare consequentialism: consequentialist in that whether an act or policy is right or wrong is a function of only its consequences—the adjective “welfare” because the only consequences that matter are the welfare (well-faring) consequences. Most welfare consequentialists are neither welfare economists nor utilitarians. And, most moral philosophers are not welfare consequentialists—neither are most normal folk.     

In Memory of Michael Watts (November 3, 1950–December 5, 2014)

In an experimental economics simulation, Ukrainian teachers of economics chose free riding responses at a rate similar to those found by Leuthold in an undergraduate class on public economics at the University of Illinois. The authors speculate that those who become academic economists may do so because they have certain insights in deductive logic.     

Bringing the patient back in: behavioral decision-making and choice in medical economics

We explore the behavioral methodology and “revolution” in economics through the lens of medical economics. We address two questions: (1) Are mainstream economic assumptions of utility-maximization realistic approximations of people’s actual behavior? (2) Do people maximize subjective expected utility, particularly in choosing from among the available options? In doing so, we illustrate–in terms of a hypothetical experimental sample of patients with dry eye diagnosis—why and how utility in pharmacoeconomic assessments might be valued differently by patients when subjective psychological, social, cognitive, and emotional factors are considered. While experimentally-observed or surveyed behavior yields stated (rather than revealed) preferences, behaviorism offers a robust toolset in understanding drug, medical device, and treatment-related decisions compared to the optimizing calculus assumed by mainstream economists. It might also do so more perilously than economists have previously understood, in light of the intractable uncertainties, information asymmetries, insulated third-party agents, entry barriers, and externalities that characterize healthcare. Behavioral work has been carried out in many sub-fields of economics. Only recently has it been extended to healthcare. This offers medical economists both the challenge and opportunity of balancing efficiency presumptions with relatively autonomous patient choices, notwithstanding their predictable, yet seemingly consistent, irrationality. Despite its comparative youth and limitations, the scientific contributions of behaviorism are secure and its future in medical economics appears to be promising.